Glenn Beck to Mitch McConnell opponent Matt Bevin: Did you support TARP in 2008?

posted at 5:21 pm on February 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

Lots of inexplicable buzz this morning about Politico’s story noting that Bevin, as CEO of an investment fund, signed an SEC document in 2008 that called TARP a “positive development.” Show of hands: How many people who are rooting for him to beat McConnell care? Even if the document reflected Bevin’s heartfelt opinion — which, he told Glenn Beck, it doesn’t — how many tea partiers would quit the Bevin bandwagon if he had turned around and said, “I did feel that way at the time but, unlike Mitch McConnell, I’ve come to regret supporting TARP”? Instant forgiveness, right? The last two men the party has nominated for president supported TARP; our last VP nominee, whose selection pleased most grassroots conservatives, actually voted for TARP in the House. This is always trotted out as a conservative litmus test but it never operates that way. Even if you were hoping that Bevin was the “true conservative” of your dreams, all it would mean if he’d supported TARP is that he’s guilty of the same sin as McConnell. Toss that out and you can still rationalize supporting him as the comparatively conservative choice on other grounds. In fact, Bevin himself is clear-eyed about why he’s become a cause celebre among some righty groups. The election’s a referendum on McConnell, not a choice between him and Bevin. All the challenger has to do is not disqualify himself and then hope that anti-establishment fever sends a huge crowd of tea partiers to the polls in May. And supporting TARP, as I just explained, is almost never disqualifying.

Anyway. He says he didn’t support it. It was the chief investment officer who wrote the SEC document. Bevin was required to sign and concluded it would be grossly inappropriate for him to mess with the CIO’s advice to investors.

“I was not the investment guy,” he said, “I never bought and sold the securities. So it would have been inappropriate and probably illegal, frankly, for me to have changed the investing commentary written by the sub-adviser the fund who was responsible for that.”

“I had a fiduciary responsibility as the chairman of this fund company to make sure that I was not perceived in any way, shape or form as having commentary on buy and sell decisions,” he said. “That was the responsibility of the adviser to the fund. And for me to have meddled in that would have been highly, highly inappropriate and all of these various Sarbanes–Oxley rules — among others — would have been very much in my grill had I attempted to rewrite or meddle or make the thinking of the actual fund manager that of my own.”

Bevin may or may not be right about the underlying legalities — it’s not clear how compliance would require him to lend his endorsement to investment advice he didn’t believe. He’s maintaining that he adamantly opposed measures that he was telling investors, to whom he has a fiduciary responsibility and to whom he was selling advice, were a great idea.

Of course, Bevin could have privately objected on principle but believed that they were the right measure — especially for equities investors — especially in the short term. But I suspect he won’t be saying that, and Mitch McConnell can rightly argue that even Matt Bevin knew financial markets had to be rescued and that passing TARP was the right move.

Question for securities experts: If the CEO thought TARP was a disaster in the making and told the CIO that, couldn’t the CIO have written instead, “Although opinion among management is divided, our consensus view is that TARP is a positive development”? Surely an expression of mild reservation based on the CEO’s considered judgment of a new federal policy wouldn’t get them sued. But then, again, it doesn’t matter. If you’re for Bevin, you deeply dislike McConnell and think it’s time for fresh blood. The challenger’s position on TARP doesn’t change that, even if it makes his blood slightly less fresh.

Speaking of McConnell and tea partiers, Rand Paul told Beck on Friday that the reason he endorsed McConnell was ” because he asked me. He asked me when there was nobody else in the race and I said yes.” Sounds … lukewarm, but I think people are making too much of it. Paul was always going to endorse McConnell; it’s his way of showing the establishment ahead of his presidential run that he can play nice with them if he ends up as the nominee. Look at it this way: Now that there is someone else in the race, why hasn’t he withdrawn his McConnell endorsement and switched to Bevin or at least chosen neutrality? QED.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Depends on the exchange rate. I’m willing to take the hit on this one. We really need to get some new blood in there. Is Bevin the right blood. I can’t vote for him, the last poll I saw had the D up over Mitch. Has that changed?

Show of hands: How many people who are rooting for him to beat McConnell care?

Not me.

As you adeptly pointed out, TARP was fairly heavily supported across the spectrum. The GOP at the time had everyone convinced the world would end if TARP was not passed. There were a few voices at the time who spoke out against it, but even many conservatives were deceived by Bush. I know I was. The “great awakening” did not really happen until 2010.

Now, if we start finding out other bad things – for example, he supports gun control, he supports big tax increases, he likes Obamacare, etc then I would reconsider my support. But TARP is a nothingburger, IMO.

If this is the best the McConnell campaign can do, they’re in trouble. They probably should have stuck to their whispering campaign that he’s a secret Democrat operative.

One key point that is not mentioned here is that SEC regulations made him sign the prospectus regardless of his opinion on its contents as he was the President of the company. Another thing of note, is as usual, Politico has many of its facts wrong.

It’s totally ridiculous for conservatives to support any primary opponent against Mitch McConnell in 2014. Let’s face it–Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose father was a long-term Congressman, was only elected with 52% of the vote in 2010 from the same state, while McConnell routinely wins with much larger margins. If a relative unknown Tea Partier wins the nomination against McConnell, he could lose an otherwise safe Republican seat in Kentucky to a Democrat.

Republicans need to win a net 6 Senate seats to take back the Senate in the 2014 elections. While there are a few states that look like easy pickups (Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana), Republicans would need to win at least two tougher states such as North Carolina, New Hampshire, West Virginia, or Colorado to re-take control of the Senate by a slim margin. We cannot afford any “givebacks” to Democrats due to an incumbent being primaried out–have we not learned the lessons of the loss of the Senate seat in Indiana in 2012, while Romney carried the state in the Presidential race?

If some conservatives don’t like the idea of McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, remember that he would do a much better job than Harry Reid.

Besides, even if McConnell was primaried out and Republicans still took the Senate majority, the new Majority Leader would not be some Tea Party freshman or sophomore, but more likely a Senator with more seniority, such as John Cornyn.

Mitchy Mitch is part of the problem. Retiring Mitchy Mitch is part of the solution. If Bevin turns out to be another Kelly Ayotte, then primary-ing him wont be an issue. Reelecting Kentucky’s incumbent version of Lindsey Graham just ensures another six years of GOPe limp-d!ckery from the Mummy of the Senate.

Sorry, I don’t see the problem with any politician being challenged. It forces the media to vet them. It forces the incumbent to defend his/her/it’s votes. It forces the challenger to articulate their views. Not that the vetting always happens (Obama) or the challengers are the right fit. But this is what the founding fathers envisioned.

TARP Not Equal Porkulus. They are not he same. TARP secured our insitutions when they could have all cumbled.

Sad part is there is a bend of Libertarianim that would be perfectly happy is our financial institutions collapsed…

Critic2029 on February 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM

This.

TARP, being a government program, was undoubtedly loaded with waste, fraud and abuse. I’ve talked to a few people in the know on this, my boss for one…they came REAL CLOSE to having the whole thing swirl down the spout….

Yep, Mitch loses to Grimes by four points while the unknown Bevin loses to her by a whopping five so by all means, let’s keep the RINO McConnell up there agreeing with the Democrats when he’s not caving to them.

Grammar Nazi on February 11, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Polling for Bevin is irrelevant at this point in time. His name recognition is almost nil, but the reality is that McConnell is the bum many in Kentucky want to throw out, and the bum the Dems know. Bevin, the unknown, just might energize Republicans and independents, who knows?

All of that, though, is simple math. I do know I can’t stand McConnell anymore, and I’m sick of establishment lifers in general. I am personally done voting just to get along. If I lived in Kentucky and McConnell got the nomination I would not vote for him, just as I won’t vote for Christie if he gets the nomination. I don’t know squat about Bevin, he may be worse than McConnell, but I’m done with the establishment.

Mitchy Mitch is part of the problem. Retiring Mitchy Mitch is part of the solution. If Bevin turns out to be another Kelly Ayotte, then primary-ing him wont be an issue. Reelecting Kentucky’s incumbent version of Lindsey Graham just ensures another six years of GOPe limp-d!ckery from the Mummy of the Senate.

Jeddite on February 11, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Exactly. If he doesn’t work out, we get someone else in there. This doing of the same thing over and over and over again, expecting different results is insane!!

Politico is really stretching on the statement in the investment prospectus.

In the context of an investment report, the statement below is an appropriate explanation of why the value of some of the assets in their fund most likely went up.

“Most of the positive developments have been government led, such as the effective nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage of the $700 billion TARP (don’t call it a bailout) and the Federal Reserve’s intention to invest in commercial paper,” wrote Bevin and Daniel Bandi, chief investment officer and vice president of the fund. “These moves should help to stabilize asset prices and help to ease liquidity constraints in the financial system.”

These government interventions did provide additional liquidity to the financial system and it is not surprising that putting more money into the system would cause the value of some investments to increase.

Increasing investment valuations is a very different benchmark than saying that interventions like TARP were a good deal for the American Taxpayer or that a Senator should have or would have voted in favor of these government actions.

It’s totally ridiculous for conservatives to support any primary opponent against Mitch McConnell in 2014. Let’s face it–Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose father was a long-term Congressman, was only elected with 52% of the vote in 2010 from the same state, while McConnell routinely wins with much larger margins. If a relative unknown Tea Partier wins the nomination against McConnell, he could lose an otherwise safe Republican seat in Kentucky to a Democrat.

This does not appear to be true based on the most recent polling. The Democrat is presently shown winning against McConnell handily with Bevin actually outperforming McConnell in the general.

Republicans need to win a net 6 Senate seats to take back the Senate in the 2014 elections. While there are a few states that look like easy pickups (Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana), Republicans would need to win at least two tougher states such as North Carolina, New Hampshire, West Virginia, or Colorado to re-take control of the Senate by a slim margin. We cannot afford any “givebacks” to Democrats due to an incumbent being primaried out–have we not learned the lessons of the loss of the Senate seat in Indiana in 2012, while Romney carried the state in the Presidential race?

If the Senate continues rubber-stamping virtually everything Obama puts in front of them, then we haven’t really “won” anything.

If some conservatives don’t like the idea of McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, remember that he would do a much better job than Harry Reid.

Given Boehner’s performance and the likelihood of McConnell performing similarly, I think in some ways he would actually be worse for us than Harry Reid. Harry Reid is at least an enemy we can unite to fight against.

Besides, even if McConnell was primaried out and Republicans still took the Senate majority, the new Majority Leader would not be some Tea Party freshman or sophomore, but more likely a Senator with more seniority, such as John Cornyn.

Steve Z on February 11, 2014 at 5:42 PM

If the Tea Party takes out McConnell, the Republican party as a whole will be much more concerned about crossing its base in the future on key issues like amnesty. Obvious liberal Republicans like Graham and McCain and their ilk would continue voting with the Democrats, but more opportunistic Congressmen might see which way the wind is blowing and tilt towards us.

Kentucky voter here. I’ve been voting Republican in Kentucky since I was 18. That’s almost 30 years.

If Bevin were to win the primary, I would vote McConnell as a write-in in the general. He is not a Kentuckian. He received a bailout from Senator Blumenthal when his bell factory burned down and then he came here to Kentucky to primary Mitch. We are not idiots here. He has supported Democrats in the past, including Wendy Caswell, a Democrat who heads the Louisville Tea Party. He’s even said (at Fancy Farm) that he is on the “same team” as the Democrats because he wants to defeat Mitch McConnell, as they do. That must have been a Freudian slip.

Another thing. Mitch handled that “defund Obamacare” non-filibuster filibuster exactly as I asked him to. Another post by Allahpundit points out correctly that Kentucky is just not in agreement with the “poke Mitch in the eye” movement out there. Our state motto is “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” We were famously neutral in the Civil War. Both Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born in Kentucky. We can fight with the best of them but we know about getting things done and the anti-McConnell is clearly nothing more than a “tear it down” movement. They can’t get things done. Mitch gets things done with the most radical left-wing president in history in the White House and without a majority in the Senate. Others demand he do more. Perhaps they need a math lesson.

Which brings me to my final point. Mitch is 26 points ahead of Bevin. THANK GOD.

It’s totally ridiculous for conservatives to support any primary opponent against Mitch McConnell in 2014.

No it isn’t.

If a relative unknown Tea Partier wins the nomination against McConnell, he could lose an otherwise safe Republican seat in Kentucky to a Democrat.

Right now, the “relative unknown Tea Partier” is ahead of the Dem while Mitch is running behind. If not losing “an otherwise safe Republican seat” is the objective, then Mitch should throw in the towel and give his war chest to Bevin.

Republicans need to win a net 6 Senate seats to take back the Senate in the 2014 elections.

Republicans winning the Senate does the nation no good if they are the type of Repubs who embrace larger government, more debt, and amnesty. HINT: Mitch is one of these despite his rhetoric.

We cannot afford any “givebacks” to Democrats due to an incumbent being primaried out

See above. Mitch should concede now to save the seat.

–have we not learned the lessons of the loss of the Senate seat in Indiana in 2012, while Romney carried the state in the Presidential race?

Sure we have: run better CONSERVATIVE candidates who won’t stick their foot in their mouths. Happy?

If some conservatives don’t like the idea of McConnell as Senate Majority Leader, remember that he would do a much better job than Harry Reid.

Do tell: in what ways would he do a better job? Slowing down the decline of our country? We need someone who will do everything possible to reverse the decline of our country.

Besides, even if McConnell was primaried out and Republicans still took the Senate majority, the new Majority Leader would not be some Tea Party freshman or sophomore, but more likely a Senator with more seniority, such as John Cornyn.

Fair enough, but the Senator with more seniority would have the Mitch McConnell example to remember us by. Also, there would be at least one more conservative Senator to try to corral, probably more. He or she would almost certainly behave better than Mitch if he gets re-elected.

Not passing judgment on Bevin, I can’t figure out one good reason he should be one of the Senators from KY instead of McConnell. Neither are perfect, so why kick out the one who you know isn’t going to go along with a liberal agenda?

Kentucky voter here. I’ve been voting Republican in Kentucky since I was 18. That’s almost 30 years.

If Bevin were to win the primary, I would vote McConnell as a write-in in the general. He is not a Kentuckian. He received a bailout from Senator Blumenthal when his bell factory burned down and then he came here to Kentucky to primary Mitch. We are not idiots here. He has supported Democrats in the past, including Wendy Caswell, a Democrat who heads the Louisville Tea Party. He’s even said (at Fancy Farm) that he is on the “same team” as the Democrats because he wants to defeat Mitch McConnell, as they do. That must have been a Freudian slip.

Another thing. Mitch handled that “defund Obamacare” non-filibuster filibuster exactly as I asked him to. Another post by Allahpundit points out correctly that Kentucky is just not in agreement with the “poke Mitch in the eye” movement out there. Our state motto is “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” We were famously neutral in the Civil War. Both Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were born in Kentucky. We can fight with the best of them but we know about getting things done and the anti-McConnell is clearly nothing more than a “tear it down” movement. They can’t get things done. Mitch gets things done with the most radical left-wing president in history in the White House and without a majority in the Senate. Others demand he do more. Perhaps they need a math lesson.

Which brings me to my final point. Mitch is 26 points ahead of Bevin. THANK GOD.

gocatholic on February 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM

More interesting to voters would be where Mitch got the additional 26 million dollars in net worth during the last six years, than whether his opponent may have contributed to a Democratic candidate in a campaign with no Republican opponents. Will Mitch ever explain that incredible increase in personal wealth?

Back in 2006, his major Vanguard investment was in its 500 Index Fund, estimated at between $650,003 and $1,350,000.The next year, McConnell’s wealth in that fund jumped to an estimated $1,100,002 to $5,250,000. Then in 2008 (not a good year in the market), McConnell’s wealth in that fund dropped a bit (estimated from $500K to $1M), but all of a sudden he had $5,001,002 to $25,015,000 in the Vanguard Tax Exempt Money Market.

I hope conservative voters see the problem with RINO McC. Nothing will change: Obamacare,the economy, smaller gov with McC still in power. Either candidate you vote for is holding your nose.
McC is a proven RINO and voting him OUT sends a clear message to the establishment and more importantly the rest of the USA that the party wants a new direction. If the GOP continues with politicians like McC/Boehner etc it will continue to lose and not grow. There is only 26% to 28% of all voters that are conservative Rep’s. Keeping McC will lead to another liberal victory because the party is getting older and younger potential conservatives are not being attracted. The old RNC keeps making mistakes; example having retiring Halley Barbour be replaced by his nephew is not change! We need more Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie types…or we will continue to lose as a party!

If Bevin were to win the primary, I would vote McConnell as a write-in in the general. He is not a Kentuckian. He received a bailout from Senator Blumenthal when his bell factory burned down and then he came here to Kentucky to primary Mitch. We are not idiots here. He has supported Democrats in the past, including Wendy Caswell, a Democrat who heads the Louisville Tea Party. He’s even said (at Fancy Farm) that he is on the “same team” as the Democrats because he wants to defeat Mitch McConnell, as they do. That must have been a Freudian slip.

Which brings me to my final point. Mitch is 26 points ahead of Bevin. THANK GOD.

gocatholic on February 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Same here. Bevin can’t be trusted. I suspect he will get tons of Democrat money and votes in the Primary. I have already seen two letters to the editor in the Lexington paper from Dems saying they are going to switch parties just to vote for him in the Primary, and it is only February.

Given Boehner’s performance and the likelihood of McConnell performing similarly, I think in some ways he would actually be worse for us than Harry Reid. Harry Reid is at least an enemy we can unite to fight against.

Doomberg on February 11, 2014 at 6:07 PM

This is probably true. Harry Reid and Dems doing horrible things to the country is something conservatives can rally against. A republican doing most of the same things will likely depress conservative voter turnout.

Steve Z on February 11, 2014 at 5:42 PM
It’s totally ridiculous for conservatives to support any primary opponent against Mitch McConnell in 2014. Let’s face it–Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose father was a long-term Congressman, was only elected with 52% of the vote in 2010 from the same state,

Not passing judgment on BevinMcConnell, I can’t figure out one good reason he should be one of the Senators from KY instead of McConnell. Neither are perfect, so why let’s kick out the one who you know isn’t is going to go along with a liberal agenda?

Tater Salad on February 11, 2014 at 6:34 PM

No offense, but this about sums it up for me. I could yet learn things about Bevin that would dissuade me from supporting him, but we know that McConnell is damaged goods.

Neither are perfect, so why kick out the one who you know isn’t going to go along with a liberal agenda?

You mean like amnesty, the ultimate in liberal agendas?

Worse yet, he could turn into AikenMourdockO’DonnellAngle.

Tater Salad

Well, who can argue with such brilliant logic as this, lol? Funny how no one worries about a candidate turning into one of the 98% of candidates backed by Karl Rove that lost, isn’t it? It’s almost like they have an agenda or something.

Let’s face it–Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose father was a long-term Congressman, was only elected with 52% of the vote in 2010 from the same state,while McConnell routinely wins with much larger margins.

Let’s face it, McConnell, a long term senator with tons of name recognition and plenty of backing from the GOP, was only elected with 53% of the vote in 2008 from the same state. Oops.

Please, extol the wondrous works of Mitch. What has he accomplished?

yaedon

Well, he did convince Rubio to run around and help get the senate amnesty bill passed.

Bevins donates to Democrats very often and when asked about it says he claims he only does that because there isn’t a really viable Republican candidate. Democrat Check mark.

Bevins in 2004 voted for a third party candidate over Bush, because he claims he was fed up with the choices. Democrat Check mark.

Bevins donated money to and endorsed Wendy Caswell (a Democract running for State Rep) in the 2012 election who later switched to “Tea Party”. When called on it he made a donation to the Republican candidate after the fact. Democrat Check mark.

Louisville Tea Party President Wendy Caswell(registered Democrat) announced her support for McConnell’s challenger, Matt Bevin, in a Courier-Journal column last Wednesday. Bevin touted Caswell’s endorsement on his website, and the Hill reported it as a sign Bevin is gaining momentum in the primary race. Democrat check mark.

“I, Wendy Caswell, do solemnly swear … that I am a registered Democrat voter in M121 precinct,” wrote Caswell in a handwritten Feb. 9, 2012 campaign filing, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, and intend to support its principles and policies,” the pledge continued.

The filing is signed by Caswell, a notary, and two registered Democrat witnesses. It was received and signed by Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is currently running for McConnell’s senate seat as a Democrat.

Why do the people who hate our leadership – which has been democratically elected by our Republican Senators and Representatives – keep pretending to be Republicans? They aren’t, as evidenced by their ongoing hissy fits and threats not to support nominees or form a third party or hold their breath until they turn blue.

The doggone door ain’t locked, Zippy. Go form your lunatic fringe party. Drop us a card now and then to let us know how you’re doing.

McConnell is the establishment so he’s part of the problem. There should be only 2 questions, in the Kentucky election, can the Republican win? Will the winner do what’s right for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky? The Democrats have shown they will do what’s right for their party and to heck with the constituents. I just want to make sure the Senator from Kentucky is not part of the Washington establishment.

Why do the people who hate our leadership – which has been democratically elected by our Republican Senators and Representatives – keep pretending to be Republicans?

Adjoran on February 11, 2014 at 7:22 PM

Well gosh, now not only do we have to back every plank of the platform, we also have to be happy with all party leadership choices in order to call ourselves Republicans? Even when that leadership abandons defense of said platform planks?

Damn, no wonder Republicans keep losing. Under the above definition, it would be impossible for them to garner a majority of anything.

TARP was less of a problem when it was passed. It’s easy to say there shoulc not have been a TARP when we had it, and it stopped a certain lack of currency in the financial markets. It’s the slight of hand that follows the money, that makes us all suspicious.

It has been my experience that many people don’t know what TARP was, by itself, without any abuses, and some even think that TARP was the $787 Billion dollar stimulus passed by Obama…the Recovery Act. When people can’t tell you the difference between these two or what TARP was used for, then I can’t give their opinion any weight.

Here is what is wrong, TARP was deficit spending and it was not directed back to pay off the deficit with the interest it accrued, it went to Timmy Geitner and Barach Obama and they respent it! And they gave some to GM. And they made banks take it that didn’t want it, and played power games with the banks over this money. The banks shouldn’t really have to please anyone but their shareholders, and not be made to jump thru hoops by the government. We don’t have…are not supposed to have nationalized banks in the U.s. Think about it, shareholders don’t want banks that fail, they vote with their feet.

What I want is the banks made smaller if necessary, so that they are diversified but also broken up into insurable pieces, and can insure themselves or prove they don’t rock the market if one part of them fails. Government insuring you means you are not responsible…so how cautious do you need to be?

We have never been told enough of the facts about the 2008 Crash, only rumor and innuendo. And when you see Governor Corzine of NJ get off scott free for his part in the mf global scandal, you think that this administration, with people like Gietner at the lead at Treasury, are tricksters connected to government for their own cover.

In 2008, the ACU listed Graham as one of only 20 “Senate Standouts,” made up of the Senate’s allegedly most conservative members. Mind you, Graham received this honor just one year after he helped spearhead “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” or amnesty for illegal aliens,

Just remember that the TARP proposed was not the TARP implemented. So I can forgive someone for supporting it. In principle I was against it but pragmatically for it since the stakes were so high. The ideal scenario would have been to never have gotten into bed with the Federal Reserve. Something that folks llike Andrew Jackson understood and acted to dissolve the predecessor. Likewise going off the gold standard. But it is what it is hence TARP as proposed was a pragmatic fix that was Shanghaied for ulterior motives. To wit, forcing banks that didn’t need it to tale a TARP loan thus laundering money with interest for the Fed.

We have never been told enough of the facts about the 2008 Crash, only rumor and innuendo. And when you see Governor Corzine of NJ get off scott free for his part in the mf global scandal, you think that this administration, with people like Gietner at the lead at Treasury, are tricksters connected to government for their own cover.
Fleuries on February 11, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Exactly. I didn’t see your post when I wrote mine, but what I just quoted from you is another piece to the TARP scandal.

And like you said, for many people, porkulous, TARP, stimulous, cas for clunkers et al just blurred into one big bad dream that they couldn’t define the distinct pieces, just that as a whole, they were all bad and they’re mad.

Here is what is wrong, TARP was deficit spending and it was not directed back to pay off the deficit with the interest it accrued, it went to Timmy Geitner and Barach Obama and they respent it!

but the point I wanted to make was that this was deficit spending in 2008, extra borrowing and additional permanent debt, and when it came back in it did not pay off the debt that it incurred, Obama and Geitner used it to balance their own deficit spending, they did not pay off this unique spending. That is my criticism, because technically, this money was returned over time to the government. The debt should have been reduced by that much when it was repaid.

How’d that work out for you in 2006?
ezspirit on February 11, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Umm. Back to the history books for you. The TP wasn’t around then. But yeah, the conservative base was depressed in turnout due to the GOP senate spending like drunken sailors and there was war fatigue due to misguided rules of engagement that treated islam as a ROP. So instead of decisively crushing the islamofascists we coddled them at the same time policing up the extremists. Had we not been shackled by Bush’s ROP tripe it could have been over in short time and Iraq and Afghanistan pacified. Those stone agers understand one thing-power and the will to use it. But that wasn’t going to happen with a “compassionate” POTUS.

This whole story on Bevin and TARP is just bunk as is Beck’s question from someone who, himself, has never coherently explained the financial crisis scam. How many at Hot Air saw through the lies and/or misrepresentations of Paulson, Bernanke and Bush in September 2008? Certainly not Alla-punk-it.
What were the biggest lies summarizing Stockman’s and others take on the malarky we were told in September 2008?

#1 AIG Bailout:
The $180 billion that went to AIG was really not necessary. The problem was in the AIG holding company that had written the credit default swap (CDS) insurance. The holding company had no liquidity and the 20 large banks (American and European and Japanese) who bought most of the insurance would have suffered the loss. The 20 large banks could have absorbed the losses. Between them they had >20 trillion dollars in their balance sheets. The loss exposure in the CDS was in the range of $60 billion or less than 1% of their balance sheets. They bought the CDSs to basically arbitrage and under the Basel regulations these banks needed to post almost no equity under the junk they were buying (when they should have had to post a lot of equity) while harvesting a huge income. With little equity taken out of play – the rate of return was approaching infinity. AIG had hundreds of billions in equity but the equity was buried in all the insurance subsidiaries and not touchable by the AIG holding company that wrote the CDSs. That part was intentionally never made clear to the public. The case (lie) was made “over and over” by Hank Paulson, et al that we had millions of people who would lose their retirement equities or millions of people who would lose their property or casualty coverage. But the truth was that all of that insurance was written by AIG subsidiaries that were legally separate entities protected by State insurance commissions that had capital standards, that had dividend stoppers meaning that one could not take the equity out/couldn’t take the cash out in order to meet margin calls or other liquidity calls for the CDS upstairs. AIG was not the contagious economic disease that was going to pollute the entire financial system of the world collapsing it into a financial black hole. They should have put AIG into bankruptcy.

Once AIG was established falsely as the financial Armageddon predicate the dominos began to fall.

#2 The Money Funds Collapse Argument:
At the time there were $3.8 trillion of money funds outstanding. Half of the 3.8 trillion consisted of government funds that had no commercial paper, so when Lehman Brothers collapsed and one money fund “broke the buck” so to speak there was no risky paper in the 1.9 trillion government fund part. What the lying liars didn’t tell the American people is the other 1.9 trillion part (Prime Funds) held government paper, bank paper and a small amount of commercial paper including Lehman. What happened that they intentionally didn’t tell the public was the Prime Funds had a quick drain of about 400 billion but almost all of that money went across the street into the government funds. People hit the send button to transfer the billions to government only funds and it didn’t go into a “black hole” and was not a classic run on the market. It wasn’t going to take everything down but represented a realization that the prime funds marketing BS that they were good for 100% on the dollar wasn’t true. The notion sold at the time was that this “great $3.8 trillion dollar industry was unraveling.” Paulson and Bernanke waved the $400 billion dollar number at Congress to get TARP and all kinds of new authority for the Federal Reserve. Thus, the false story told that the commercial paper industry was failing, payrolls couldn’t be met and main street ATMs would go dark was just buncombe.

#3 The Banking System on Main Street Would Be the Next to Fall:
Paulson and Bernanke and their media sycophants were blubbering about runs on main street banks. But the runs were totally confined to the canyons of Wall Street in the wholesale funding market (repos and unsecured commercial paper). The last financial gambling houses left standing were Goldman-Sachs and Morgan-Stanley. The point was made that the financial contagion would spread to the entire main street banking system. During the week of 15SEP08 the banking system had 12 trillion in assets but less than $100 billion of toxic mortgage-based assets (less than 1%) was in the main street banking system. All the rest of the toxic assets were in investment banks, hedge funds, or had been distributed out to banks around the world. Thus, no run on main street banks would have occurred.

Thus, a set of knowingly false claims made to the public led to TARP and granting the Federal Reserve central banking cartel even more powers and with free market rules essentially set aside completely. Bernanke told the country “it was facing the Great Depression 2.0.” This wasn’t even remotely the case.

No wonder CIOs in flyover country were reacting in support of TARP! With the lying liars spinning their false stories of financial Armageddon, who wouldn’t.

Bevin is a far better candidate and will make a better senator than Mitch “turtle-in-the-headlights” McConnell!

The only bodies “saved” were the crony leftists and neoliberals at both Washington and Wall Street. Had the “collapse” happened, it would’ve just been another Iceland; the cronies burn deservedly while the rest of the country gets back to growth after the bad crony-gov debt is purged.

Instead a 6-years-running zombie economy was dumped on the American people while the same problems, caused by the same various leftists, continue on partying with crony-gov money. Whom by the way are STILL getting bailouts on the backs of American people through other schemes like QE.

TARP ranks right up there with the worst like Obamacare. It’s forgivable (somewhat) for being spooked into TARP in 2008, but no credible conservative/free marketer should be backing it now.

We need to win the Senate but we need to send a message even more. Maybe by voting out some of the RINOs that have been around forever and never have done anything conservative, the others will wake up.

I wish Bevin had announced it himself. He won’t get a penny from me unless he now takes a full and complete inventory of all his other crony capitalist/corporate welfare dalliances and explains his reasons. He should also publish the counter reasons for his intellectual rebirth and explain why it is now impossible for him to try that sh*t ever again.

This is why Republicans (and conservatives) are not serious about winning. You don’t primary the leadership of your own party. Especially while you’re in the minority.
Do you ever wonder why elected Republicans (multiple terms) don’t maintain their rockstar status – like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz are now enjoying? It’s because it’s not enough to just BE conservative. Office holders like McConnell and McCain were plenty conservative when they started out, as it was defined at the time. It’s not that they’ve become more liberal in philosophy. It’s the effect of long term statecraft that seemingly changes them. The State itself is poison.

Why did Demint leave the Senate? Because the Senate is not the position from which you affect change. Neither was it designed to be. The Senate is not the vehicle for movement Conservatism. Count on Paul and Cruz to give up and leave their seats or become soured themselves. In due time, they’ll be the McConnell and Graham you hate. See Marco Rubio.

Let this be your mantra: The Conservative movement CANNOT advance while Democrats are in power.

Support McConnell. He’s not the firebrand you want him to be. But the machine as it exists needs operators like him.

Kentucky voter here. I’ve been voting Republican in Kentucky since I was 18. That’s almost 30 years.
If Bevin were to win the primary, I would vote McConnell as a write-in in the general. He is not a Kentuckian. He received a bailout from Senator Blumenthal when his bell factory burned down and then he came here to Kentucky to primary Mitch. We are not idiots here. He has supported Democrats in the past, including Wendy Caswell, a Democrat who heads the Louisville Tea Party. He’s even said (at Fancy Farm) that he is on the “same team” as the Democrats because he wants to defeat Mitch McConnell, as they do. That must have been a Freudian slip.
gocatholic on February 11, 2014 at 6:20 PM

First, I don’t live in your state, but I just did 20 min of research on Matt Bevin. Your statement “We are not idiots here.” is false.

There is nothing that leads me to believe that this guy is a Democrat. If your ONLY excuse is that he has supported someone that is a TEA PARTY affiliate, then it is you that is a MORON. Tea Party people come in all different versions, one thing is for certain. Tea Party people are at least united in the Fact that:
1) TOO much Government Spending is going on.
2) The Government is getting TOO big.

So take the proper “context” as the comment of the “same team”. Jesus Christ, I thought Catholics were smarter then that.
I don’t see Mitchy following that mantra.

And when you say that Mitch “gets things done”, what is that supposed to mean? Mitch hasn’t handled “healthcare” anything…. “IT” still exists.

Some of you people need to stay out of the political process and just join a think tank or something. It’s great to have your true conservative ideas, but unless they are implemented, you are IMPOTENT.